fwd: Re: RC5/6 Patents - Clarifications

Lewis McCarthy (lmccarth@cs.umass.edu)
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:56:26 -0400

• Next message: Lewis McCarthy: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil"
• Previous message: JPeschel@aol.com: "Re: Pegasus email, internal DES encryption?"
• Maybe in reply to: M Taylor: "Pegasus email, internal DES encryption?"

Due to continued glitches with toad.com mail delivery, I think the
message below didn't make it out to the list yesterday. So I'm
*forwarding* it now:

------ begin forwarded message ------

Subject: Re: RC5/6 Patents - Clarifications
   Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:50:22 -0500
   From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
     To: Bob Baldwin <baldwin@chirality.rsa.com>
     CC: "CodherPlunks@toad.com" <CodherPlunks@toad.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <In <6236E58EC451D1119E80006097040ED97B12F0@LOBESTER>, on 07/21/98
   at 05:26 PM, Bob Baldwin <baldwin@rsa.com> said:

> For my part, in my comments to NIST, I have urged that
>the new AES be defined in to broadest possible way, so as to encompass
>the greatest possible array of implementation modes. Specifically, I have
>encouraged NIST to define PRNG, Digest
>and key derivation modes that an implementor can use for free.

IMHO the NIST should approve a collection of algorithms rather than
putting all their eggs in one basket. When one considers the amount of
time and effort that goes into creating a new algorithm and then getting
it established as an "approved" standard it only makes sense to have
something to fall back on. A couple of years from now some crafty
cryptologist may find some serious weakness in the approved standard and
then we are back to square one. Sure there is more work involved in
implementing 2 or 3 algorithms than there is in implementing just one but
this is not necessarily a BadThing(tm).

- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgp.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: What I like about MS is its loyalty to customers!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNbXjE49Co1n+aLhhAQFapQP+NqUPlqm0ddup6vP2PDj3HOUnKYQqKTfF
NCvRZvTjcPHXcORHWlQtbs2iPn3gMduat9pwzA0rwp/BI4Ism5ACR/VX9wodhXpF
6XxOKDqPs8sOnNvWWuUayLRRFNJePk8wnW5+/JlU5bzof279jHZTB+DuRzs6RDge
wuUYy1ZJkgo=
=xu3P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------ end forwarded message -----

• Next message: Lewis McCarthy: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil"
• Previous message: JPeschel@aol.com: "Re: Pegasus email, internal DES encryption?"
• Maybe in reply to: M Taylor: "Pegasus email, internal DES encryption?"